If there is any video chipset update within the next month...I'll eat my hat!!

What makes you say that? Apple knows they have to make the Mac mini Core Image capable. They have to do the same with the iBook.

They knew about Core Image before the even initially release the Mac mini. I just see the Mac mini as the best platform for the first x86 rollout...so why change things now? ESPECIALLY if the reports are true that the mini is currently their 3rd best selling product (behind the iPod and iPod mini). Why bother making a change now if they are already flying off the shelves?? Wait for the Intel change and beef it up then!_________________ -=iMav=- http://geekhack.org

1.42 and 1.50 seem unprobable. I believe maybe the 1.42 will become base, but .08 gHz doesn't seem like enough of an upgrade for $100. I'd think they'd make it in the mid to high 1.5's (1.56-1.58 ) or so.
and why use a laptop gpu? 64mb cards are small enough as it is._________________Gone.

If there is any video chipset update within the next month...I'll eat my hat!!

What makes you say that? Apple knows they have to make the Mac mini Core Image capable. They have to do the same with the iBook.

They knew about Core Image before the even initially release the Mac mini. I just see the Mac mini as the best platform for the first x86 rollout...so why change things now? ESPECIALLY if the reports are true that the mini is currently their 3rd best selling product (behind the iPod and iPod mini). Why bother making a change now if they are already flying off the shelves?? Wait for the Intel change and beef it up then!

Apple can't just give up on the Mac mini and wait for x86. The Intel rollout is still too far away. They gota keep the line fresh and keep some attention on it. Who knows what the new Mac mini update will bring, even if they slap some 512MB sticks in there it keeps the Mac mini in the press. Well at least it sparks discussion. What else are we going to talk about on a Friday morning in July?

1.42 and 1.50 seem unprobable. I believe maybe the 1.42 will become base, but .08 gHz doesn't seem like enough of an upgrade for $100. I'd think they'd make it in the mid to high 1.5's (1.56-1.58 ) or so.
and why use a laptop gpu? 64mb cards are small enough as it is.

The Mini can't support GPUs in any standard form factor. The Mini's graphics are soldered onto the board, so it's completely integrated. Mobile graphics are designed to be small enough to fit on miniPCI cards, so those work perfectly. Not only that, but these graphics cards are designed to be low-power and therefore, low heat so the Mini can handle cooling them. You will NEVER see a non-mobile graphics chipset in a Mini as long as its form factor stays similar to what it is now.

The Go fx5200 seems like a logical next step for Mini graphics. That would provide enough boost to bring the Mini into an arena where it could actually play games at decent frame rates. For my full transition to the Mac, this is what I really need. My Mini can barely handle Diablo 2 at fully setting....pathetic.

Another option for video upgrade would be for Apple to just keep using the Ati 9200, but increase the memory to 64K. They could probably just use different VRAM chipis without any changes to the motherboard.

Another option for video upgrade would be for Apple to just keep using the Ati 9200, but increase the memory to 64K. They could probably just use different VRAM chipis without any changes to the motherboard.

That is definitely a possibility, though who knows if they'd need to change the wiring on the motherboard to support denser chips; I doubt it though.

The question is: Why would Apple want to keep releasing a product that doesn't fully support their OS. They keep pushing all the features of Tiger, but what if you want to get a Mac for those features, but that Mac doesn't fully support all of them? (current iBook and Mini models do not support Core Image)_________________Computer Engineer
Junior, Brown University
15" NC8430 HP Laptop
1.42Ghz PPC Mac Mini, 1Gb RAM, 1st Gen
40GB G4 iPod
2GB Black iPod Nano

The question is: Why would Apple want to keep releasing a product that doesn't fully support their OS. They keep pushing all the features of Tiger, but what if you want to get a Mac for those features, but that Mac doesn't fully support all of them? (current iBook and Mini models do not support Core Image)

Lack of Core Image support may be on of the limitations of a low end Mac, that or they will fix it. It depends on how much of an upgrade the new Mac mini's will be.